Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 23, 1992 TAG: 9202240209
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: D-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
BREAKING WITH BUDGET TRADITION
A FUNNY thing happened to the House version of the state budget on its way last week to passage. All 100 delegates, representing all 6.5 million Virginians, got to participate.That's not how it's supposed to happen.
Traditionally, the budget action takes place entirely on the 20-member Appropriations Committee. Traditionally, floor amendments to the committee's recommendation are technically allowed but routinely rejected. Even when it's something so simple as correcting an arithmetic error, it's supposed to be taken care of later, when senior Appropriations members confer with senior Senate Finance Committee members to resolve differences between the two chambers' budget bills.
Until this year.
On Thursday, before passing its version of the budget, the House approved five amendments offered by various members of the Republican minority, including Salem Del. Steve Agee and Pulaski County Del. Tommy Baker.
In part, that may have been due to the disinclination among younger Democrats to give the Republicans a campaign weapon in a tough-times biennium. (In the end, the budget was passed on a 95-5 vote.) In part, it apparently was also due to unhappiness among some Democrats with their own Appropriations chairman, Robert Ball.
But credit some of it to common sense.
For example, a couple of amendments, including one by Agee, altered sloppy language to make the budget say what the Appropriations Committee presumably meant it to say. A third amendment removed funds for a study directive, after it was pointed out that no companion resolution calling for the study had been passed.
If such things are ripe for correction, why wait to correct them?
Agee's other amendment - to cut Senate pay by 2 percent, to match the cut taken last year by the House - was the only one of the five that smacked of grandstanding.
In itself, it's not a bad idea. Though it would have no real budgetary impact (savings in a $28-billion biennial budget: $28,000, or one ten-thousandth of a percent), such things can be symbolically important. But as a House rather than Senate initiative, the symbolism gets confused. The issue of austerity sharing gets mixed up with issues of legislative prerogative.
The one substantive amendment of the five came from Baker. If it survives the House-Senate conference, it would cut $30 million from the Virginia Lottery's $56-million advertising budget and send it to localities.
It's a good idea, but also a little risky. Like it or not, the state now relies on lottery revenues to fill general-fund budget holes. An advertising cut theoretically could result in a decline in revenues greater than the amount saved and sent to localities. Further study of the possible consequences, and probably a cut smaller than $30 million, would be appropriate.
On balance, the House's break with tradition was a good one; a responsible exercise by the Republican minority and their Democratic allies, and a step toward opening up the budget process. Budgets should reflect the collective will of all Virginians' representatives; budget-making should not be the exclusive preserve of those representing only 20 percent of the population.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY